Jump to content
PhuturePriest

Dubia Round Two -- Formal Correction on Horizon?

Recommended Posts

KnightofChrist
25 minutes ago, Era Might said:

It's all how you spin the story.

Pope issues letter on love and family.

Cardinals: The gates of hell are collapsing, we are going to correct you!

No, no, it's just a bit strange and duh duh childishly disrespectful for you to mock the courage of the Cardinals to correct the Pope to his face when they have asked to meet the Pope but he refuses to meet them face to face. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Era Might
1 minute ago, KnightofChrist said:

No, no, it's just a bit strange and duh duh childishly disrespectful for you to mock the courage of the Cardinals to correct the Pope to his face when they have asked to meet the Pope but he refuses to meet them face to face. 

What's courageous about it? The idea that they're going to "correct" the Pope already assumes that they're in the right. What are they going to say in a meeting that they haven't already said? Maybe the Pope already said all he's gonna say in AL. Maybe he has nothing to add. So, how about the Cardinals go back to their Sees, wash the feet of some lepers, and call it a day. That would be courageous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack4
36 minutes ago, Era Might said:

It's all how you spin the story.

Pope issues letter on love and family.

Cardinals: The gates of hell are collapsing, we are going to correct you!

Or, we can give the story another spin:

Pope: Venerable brethren, speak with parrhesia

Cardinals: With parrhesia, we'd like to ask some doubts...

Or

Pope: I want a conversion of the papacy! It is my duty, as the Bishop of Rome, to be open to suggestions which can help make the exercise of my ministry more faithful to the meaning which Jesus Christ wished to give it and to the present needs of evangelization!

Pope: Those in the Church should listen!

Cardinals: We'd like to meet and talk with you...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dominicansoul
2 hours ago, Era Might said:

What's courageous about it? The idea that they're going to "correct" the Pope already assumes that they're in the right. What are they going to say in a meeting that they haven't already said? Maybe the Pope already said all he's gonna say in AL. Maybe he has nothing to add. So, how about the Cardinals go back to their Sees, wash the feet of some lepers, and call it a day. That would be courageous.

If the Pope represents Christ on earth, would Christ ignore his brothers?  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Era Might
7 minutes ago, dominicansoul said:

If the Pope represents Christ on earth, would Christ ignore his brothers?  

 

 

I don't want to be sarcastic about the question, but, it never ended well when the disciples tried to correct Christ. They always lost the case, not by argument, but because he refused to argue, he confounded.

Of course, it's not a literal comparison. Your question is fine, but, the Pope is dealing with fellow career clerics. He probably doesn't agree with their view of things, otherwise, he wouldn't have written AL. What is the Pope supposed to do, call a debate because a couple of cardinals took issue with his document? People all over the world take issue with the Pope. I recall a while back Pope Benedict meeting privately with Hans Kung, two men with very different views of things, but also two old friends and colleagues. The point of the meeting wasn't to respond to Kung's arguments or get into a dispute, it was just a meeting of brothers.

That's a very different situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Clare

A.L. is a real "hot potato"!  I'm not really happy with the Pope right now because of his actions with the Order of Malta....but he IS the Pope, so that leaves me little room for dissent.  After all, I never received a ballot or questionnaire.....same with A.L.  So I just go on doing my Catholic thing and biting my tongue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KnightofChrist
7 hours ago, Era Might said:

What's courageous about it? The idea that they're going to "correct" the Pope already assumes that they're in the right. What are they going to say in a meeting that they haven't already said? Maybe the Pope already said all he's gonna say in AL. Maybe he has nothing to add. So, how about the Cardinals go back to their Sees, wash the feet of some lepers, and call it a day. That would be courageous.

You are the one who questioned their manliness, and courage for not correcting the Pope to his face. Which is complete krap because he will not meet them face to face. If you're not far out in left with some wacked out nonsense questioning the very fabric of reality you're making dip chip insults. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seven77
2 hours ago, Francis Clare said:

A.L. is a real "hot potato"!  I'm not really happy with the Pope right now because of his actions with the Order of Malta....but he IS the Pope, so that leaves me little room for dissent.  After all, I never received a ballot or questionnaire.....same with A.L.  So I just go on doing my Catholic thing and biting my tongue.

 

I feel you. Why weren't we consulted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack4
8 hours ago, Era Might said:

it never ended well when the disciples tried to correct Christ. They always lost the case, not by argument, but because he refused to argue, he confounded.

Source?

 

Quote

a couple of cardinals

What are the functions of a Cardinal in the Church?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fides' Jack
11 hours ago, Era Might said:

What's courageous about it? The idea that they're going to "correct" the Pope already assumes that they're in the right. What are they going to say in a meeting that they haven't already said? Maybe the Pope already said all he's gonna say in AL. Maybe he has nothing to add. So, how about the Cardinals go back to their Sees, wash the feet of some lepers, and call it a day. That would be courageous.

Would you prefer if their letter was full of expletives like so much of what passes for literature these days because "that's how people actually talk and so it's not fake"?  There is a certain degree of respect that they owe to the Seat of Peter, and that is why the letters and dubia are worded the way they are.  It wouldn't be appropriate, otherwise.  It's not false piety - it's actual piety which I suspect maybe you aren't able to recognize.

For these cardinals to go and bury their heads in the sand, as you recommend, would be sinful and lukewarm.

9 hours ago, Era Might said:

I don't want to be sarcastic about the question, but, it never ended well when the disciples tried to correct Christ. They always lost the case, not by argument, but because he refused to argue, he confounded.

Of course, it's not a literal comparison. Your question is fine, but, the Pope is dealing with fellow career clerics. He probably doesn't agree with their view of things, otherwise, he wouldn't have written AL. What is the Pope supposed to do, call a debate because a couple of cardinals took issue with his document? People all over the world take issue with the Pope. I recall a while back Pope Benedict meeting privately with Hans Kung, two men with very different views of things, but also two old friends and colleagues. The point of the meeting wasn't to respond to Kung's arguments or get into a dispute, it was just a meeting of brothers.

That's a very different situation.

Hmm...  You seem to think that these cardinals are looking for a final answer from the Pope to these questions (dubia).  That is not what's going on here.  They don't want to go to the Pope and say, "Hey, Papa, we have these questions.  You seem to be saying Catholics can go to Communion while they're living in sin.  Can you confirm whether or not you're saying that?"  And then if the Pope says, "Yes, that's what I'm saying."  Then they'll say, "Oh, OK.  Thanks, we just wanted to make sure that's what you really meant."  And that'll be the end of it.

No.

They're not looking for the Pope's final answer on some controversial topic.  They're looking for the Pope to affirm what has been the constant teaching of the Church since the time of Christ.  The teaching that you can't receive Holy Communion in a state of Mortal sin.  If you do, you compound your sins and deserve everlasting hell fire.  That has always been the teaching.

I think you do understand that, but behind several statements here there is also the tone that "we shouldn't be questioning the Pope, because we aren't the Pope."  But the Pope is not above truth.  Never has been.  And every Christian (read: Catholic) has a duty to the Way, the Truth, and the Life, before their duty to the Magisterium.  And we know from the Bible that there will be a time when our moral authority (member of the Church) will be speaking falsehoods, and we are warned to watch out for those falsehoods.  

 

FP: thanks for posting the links!  Super helpful!

Edited by fides' Jack
Wanted to address additional point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peace

Well it does seem that this issue is causing some division and scandal in the Church, which is unfortunate.

I wonder the extent to which this issue is really causing division though. In the world of the Internet it seems as though the sky is falling, but in the real world (the world in which I live at least) this is barely an issue to anyone I know at all. Perhaps that is because I do not happen to know any Catholics who are divorced and "remarried" though.

At first I put the blame on the Cardinals. Not for asking for clarification, but for the way that they went about it. I thought that this most recent letter they wrote was a much better way of attempting to start some dialogue. It would have been great if they had started with this instead of the Dubia that they issued a while back. And perhaps it would still be good if they could just leave the matter outside of the public sphere.

On the other hand, it seems that Pope Francis is being unnecessarily stubborn and defensive about the situation. If he does not desire to answer the questions at this time, it would be good for him to simply respond by saying "I will not respond for XYZ reasons," "The practice of the Church has not changed", "The practice of the church has changed," or "I desire to wait a bit and see how things play out before deciding on my course of action". Regardless of whether the Cardinals are right or wrong, they are Cardinals and have expressed a concern. It seems that Pope Francis could do more to try to quell division than what he has done now.

So it is tough for me to say who is to blame for all of it. It seems that all of them (and perhaps us as well) share some of the blame for it, but I do not know any of their motives and what is going on behind the scenes so I think I will just wait to see how it all plays out between them. In any event, I think we can take some comfort in the fact that the Church cannot teach error, and that eventually (whether it be during this pontificate or a subsequent pontificate) these matters will be clarified and resolved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Era Might
19 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

They're not looking for the Pope's final answer on some controversial topic.  They're looking for the Pope to affirm what has been the constant teaching of the Church since the time of Christ.  The teaching that you can't receive Holy Communion in a state of Mortal sin.  If you do, you compound your sins and deserve everlasting hell fire.  That has always been the teaching.

I think you do understand that, but behind several statements here there is also the tone that "we shouldn't be questioning the Pope, because we aren't the Pope."  But the Pope is not above truth.  Never has been.  And every Christian (read: Catholic) has a duty to the Way, the Truth, and the Life, before their duty to the Magisterium.  And we know from the Bible that there will be a time when our moral authority (member of the Church) will be speaking falsehoods, and we are warned to watch out for

That's one interpretation. Another interpretation is that they are ideological conservatives. The conservative worldview sees everything as a structure to be defended. The doctors of the law and the pharisees were the conservatives in Israel. They argued and quibbled and defended every last law and point lest one block in the structure fail.

You say that the Cardinals aren't even accusing the Pope of anything, just asking him to reaffirm the structure. That, too, is characteristic of conservative ideology. Every potential subversive must be weeded out and ideological appearances must be enforced lest even the appearance of difference be introduced.

The Pope's document was pretty much in continuity with the church's massaging. It could have been written by Benedict or John Paul. What is really at stake for these cardinals is Pope Francis' wider challenge to the conservative worldview. The doctors of the law would look at Christ's words before the woman taken in adultery, and they would say, are you approving adultery? Who can stand, if you give even the appearance that adulterers are not objects of lawyers and judges, but of mercy and grace?

The scholastic would point to Christ's words, "go and sin no more," and use it in a legalistic way, to show that Christ upheld the law. But no, Christ told her to sin no more, he didn't tell her to appear to sin no more, or please those who want proper appearances, like conservatives who hide behind family values to keep up the fortress, the structure, and meanwhile they ignore the weightier matters of the law, mercy and justice.

That is Francis' real "crime" here, he is a scandal to the conservative worldview, not for any formal statement or action, just because he does not see the world, the church, and the Gospel as a structure to be maintained, but as a spirit to be welcomed.

Edited by Era Might

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack4
4 hours ago, Era Might said:

The Pope's document was pretty much in continuity with the church's massaging. It could have been written by Benedict or John Paul.

No. B16 and JP2 have written in their post-synodal apostolic exhortations on the issue of pastoral care of those in complex irregular situations; and their voice is not in the eighth chapter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peace
7 hours ago, Jack4 said:

No. B16 and JP2 have written in their post-synodal apostolic exhortations on the issue of pastoral care of those in complex irregular situations; and their voice is not in the eighth chapter. 

Well, the portions of Familiaris that are quoted in the 8th Chapter are St. John Paul II's voice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack4
1 hour ago, Peace said:

Well, the portions of Familiaris that are quoted in the 8th Chapter are St. John Paul II's voice.

Cola has water content, yet it doesn't taste like rasam. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peace
1 hour ago, Jack4 said:

Cola has water content, yet it doesn't taste like rasam. 

Not sure what rasam is. Could you please explain what the point is here, young Tradawan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Era Might
14 hours ago, Jack4 said:

No. B16 and JP2 have written in their post-synodal apostolic exhortations on the issue of pastoral care of those in complex irregular situations; and their voice is not in the eighth chapter. 

He quotes John Paul directly in chapter 8:

295. Along these lines, Saint John Paul II proposed the so-called “law of gradualness” in the knowledge that the human being “knows, loves and accomplishes moral good by different stages of growth”. This is not a “gradualness of law” but rather a gradualness in the prudential 


exercise of free acts on the part of subjects who are not in a position to understand, appreciate, or fully carry out the objective demands of the law. 
For the law is itself a gift of God which points out the way, a gift for everyone without exception; it can be followed with the help of grace, even though each human being “advances grad-
ually with the progressive integration of the gifts of God and the demands of God’s definitive and absolute love in his or her entire personal and 
social life”.

Another thing to note is this document was the Pope's conclusion to a synod. It wasn't like the Pope was acting apart from the bishops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack4
10 hours ago, Peace said:

Not sure what rasam is. Could you please explain what the point is here, young Tradawan?

A spicy liquid.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasam

Rasam has water content, Cola has water content, yet these taste very different. 

So too, the concept of "mercy" there in both Exhortations, yet they are different in their approach to intrinsic evil.

Edited by Jack4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fides' Jack
On 6/24/2017 at 6:19 PM, Era Might said:

That's one interpretation. Another interpretation is that they are ideological conservatives. The conservative worldview sees everything as a structure to be defended. The doctors of the law and the pharisees were the conservatives in Israel. They argued and quibbled and defended every last law and point lest one block in the structure fail.

You say that the Cardinals aren't even accusing the Pope of anything, just asking him to reaffirm the structure. That, too, is characteristic of conservative ideology. Every potential subversive must be weeded out and ideological appearances must be enforced lest even the appearance of difference be introduced.

The Pope's document was pretty much in continuity with the church's massaging. It could have been written by Benedict or John Paul. What is really at stake for these cardinals is Pope Francis' wider challenge to the conservative worldview. The doctors of the law would look at Christ's words before the woman taken in adultery, and they would say, are you approving adultery? Who can stand, if you give even the appearance that adulterers are not objects of lawyers and judges, but of mercy and grace?

The scholastic would point to Christ's words, "go and sin no more," and use it in a legalistic way, to show that Christ upheld the law. But no, Christ told her to sin no more, he didn't tell her to appear to sin no more, or please those who want proper appearances, like conservatives who hide behind family values to keep up the fortress, the structure, and meanwhile they ignore the weightier matters of the law, mercy and justice.

That is Francis' real "crime" here, he is a scandal to the conservative worldview, not for any formal statement or action, just because he does not see the world, the church, and the Gospel as a structure to be maintained, but as a spirit to be welcomed.

Yes, I would say they are ideological conservatives.  I don't see what's wrong with that.  I don't agree that conservative ideology tries to weed out any "potential subversive".  In fact, I think we've seen that far more from the left over the last couple years - at least in the political sphere in the US.

I did not say that the Cardinals aren't even accusing the Pope.  I think there is certainly a hint of accusation in the dubia.  I think it's also right that there should be.  They're defending not just the letter of the law, but also the spirit of the law, as well as the individual souls of all Christians today.  That's the point.

I wonder if you question all law, or just law that doesn't agree with your standpoint on certain issues?  Do you think this is just a matter of a law?  If it were, the Cardinals would have nothing to point out.  This is not an issue like immigration or even whether or not priests can marry.  This is an issue of moral teaching - not law.  It's a matter that will ultimately beaver dam many souls to hell for all eternity.  It's not something the Pope or anyone else has the authority to change.

On 6/24/2017 at 4:18 PM, Peace said:

Well it does seem that this issue is causing some division and scandal in the Church, which is unfortunate.

I wonder the extent to which this issue is really causing division though. In the world of the Internet it seems as though the sky is falling, but in the real world (the world in which I live at least) this is barely an issue to anyone I know at all. Perhaps that is because I do not happen to know any Catholics who are divorced and "remarried" though.

At first I put the blame on the Cardinals. Not for asking for clarification, but for the way that they went about it. I thought that this most recent letter they wrote was a much better way of attempting to start some dialogue. It would have been great if they had started with this instead of the Dubia that they issued a while back. And perhaps it would still be good if they could just leave the matter outside of the public sphere.

I would like to live where you do, where no Catholics are seeking annulment.  That would be amesome.  Where I am, just about every non-traddy family I know has at least 1 member who has had an annulment.  In the largest parish in our diocese it's a big issue.  In the parish we just left, which is mostly upper-middle class people, it's a big issue.  I try not to judge, but when you see people "shopping" for annulments by going to certain dioceses that they think are more likely to grant them, it's hard not to.

I don't know what sort of rules and laws govern the actions of the cardinals.  I'm not one to judge whether or not they're going about things the right way.  I only know that something had to be done, and so I am thankful for what they're doing.

Edited by fides' Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peace
13 hours ago, Jack4 said:

A spicy liquid.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasam

Rasam has water content, Cola has water content, yet these taste very different. 

So too, the concept of "mercy" there in both Exhortations, yet they are different in their approach to intrinsic evil.

Thanks for the clarification. In what way would you say that their approaches are different?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×